It's not a different debate at all. Because these arguments are really about living off the value of other people's labour.
Sometimes managerial/organisational ability is productive and creative, but in reality it's often piratical and exploitative.
It's much easier to get rich by limiting worker freedom and opportunity and herding workers towards a precarious existence than it is by creating genuine opportunities for enhanced collective wealth.
Do you want wealth to be a narcissistic signifier of being better than other people - and therefore wholly deserving of extra special treatment - or do you want to be an organiser and inventor who creates systems which give everyone (not just a small in-group) a helping hand up and makes the culture more creative, inventive, and interesting?
Sometimes managerial/organisational ability is productive and creative, but in reality it's often piratical and exploitative.
It's much easier to get rich by limiting worker freedom and opportunity and herding workers towards a precarious existence than it is by creating genuine opportunities for enhanced collective wealth.
Do you want wealth to be a narcissistic signifier of being better than other people - and therefore wholly deserving of extra special treatment - or do you want to be an organiser and inventor who creates systems which give everyone (not just a small in-group) a helping hand up and makes the culture more creative, inventive, and interesting?